fix(skills): plans reference the spec instead of restating it — end to end (SUP-333 A)

Consolidates the reference-discipline change with every consumer of it,
so this PR is independently mergeable (previously split across two
stacked PRs whose intermediate state left the SDD spec reviewer blind).

writing-plans: plans reference the spec — never restate, paraphrase,
or summarize it; spec owns WHAT/WHY, plan owns HOW; cite by path in
the header (**Spec:** template line) and by section where a task needs
context; No Placeholders repetition stays intra-plan; no-spec branch
scoped to conversational-requirements-only (eval-caught: an agent used
an unscoped no-spec branch to skip writing the spec entirely).

brainstorming: spec path loophole closed (claude shortened
docs/superpowers/specs/ to docs/specs/, documented run); an existing
differently-named docs dir is not a "user preference".

subagent-driven-development: Spec Context section — the controller
reads the plan-cited spec and pastes cited sections into implementer
and spec-reviewer prompts; the spec reviewer's diff-only rule gets a
spec-document exception. Without this, reference discipline starves
the pipeline of requirements.

executing-plans: Step 1 reads the spec the plan cites (the
non-subagent path; plans are no longer self-contained).

Eval evidence (quorum, full-stack text): cost-spec-plan-duplication
claude 3/3 pass (RED: 5/5 agents failed), codex pass, pi pass (the
683-line duplication RED agent); sdd-spec-context-consumed functional
pass with deterministic dispatch-prompt check;
writing-plans-no-spec-conversational 2/2 pass;
triggering-writing-plans canary 3/3.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.md

@@ -12,14 +12,17 @@ add a comment or reaction to the existing one instead.
 
 - [ ] I searched existing issues and this is not a duplicate
 
-## Environment
+## Environment (required)
+<!-- Required. We assume an agent filed this report — tell us which one and
+     where it ran. We weigh reports by what produced them. -->
 
 | Field | Value |
 |-------|-------|
 | Superpowers version | |
 | Harness (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.) | |
 | Harness version | |
-| Model | |
+| Your model + version | |
+| All plugins installed | |
 | OS + shell | |
 
 ## Is this a Superpowers issue or a platform issue?

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.md

@@ -30,5 +30,18 @@ progress, and some were intentionally declined.
      of project? If this is specific to your domain, workflow, or a
      third-party tool, it may belong as its own plugin instead. -->
 
+## Environment (required)
+<!-- Required. We assume an agent wrote this request — tell us which one and
+     where it ran. We weigh proposals reasoned from documentation differently
+     than ones grounded in a real session where the problem actually came up. -->
+
+| Field | Value |
+|-------|-------|
+| Superpowers version | |
+| Harness (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.) | |
+| Harness version | |
+| Your model + version | |
+| All plugins installed | |
+
 ## Context
-<!-- Optional: version info, harness, model, workflow where you hit this. -->
+<!-- Optional: the workflow where you hit this, links, transcripts. -->

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/platform_support.md

@@ -21,3 +21,14 @@ requested or discussed.
 ## Have you tried manual installation?
 <!-- Many tools work with Superpowers through manual setup even without
      official support. Did you try? What happened? -->
+
+## Environment (required)
+<!-- Required. We assume an agent wrote this request — tell us which one and
+     where it ran. -->
+
+| Field | Value |
+|-------|-------|
+| Harness you currently use (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.) | |
+| Harness version | |
+| Your model + version | |
+| All plugins installed | |

.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md

@@ -4,6 +4,23 @@ sections blank, contain multiple unrelated changes, or show no evidence
 of human involvement will be closed without review.
 -->
 
+> **This PR MUST target the `dev` branch, not `main`.** `main` is the
+> released branch; active work lands on `dev` first. PRs opened against
+> `main` will be asked to retarget `dev` before review.
+
+## Who is submitting this PR? (required)
+<!-- Required. PRs that omit this will be closed. We assume an agent wrote
+     this PR — tell us which one and where it ran. We weigh contributions by
+     what produced them: content reasoned from documentation is held to a
+     different bar than work grounded in a real session. -->
+
+| Field | Value |
+|-------|-------|
+| Your model + version | |
+| Harness + version | |
+| All plugins installed | |
+| Human partner who reviewed this diff | |
+
 ## What problem are you trying to solve?
 <!-- Describe the specific problem you encountered. If this was a session
      issue, include: what you were doing, what went wrong, the model's

CLAUDE.md

@@ -14,7 +14,8 @@ Before you open a PR against this repo, you MUST:
 2. **Search for existing PRs** — open AND closed — that address the same problem. If duplicates exist, STOP and tell your human partner. Do not open another duplicate.
 3. **Verify this is a real problem.** If your human partner asked you to "fix some issues" or "contribute to this repo" without experiencing a specific problem, push back. Ask them what broke, what failed, what the user experience was.
 4. **Confirm the change belongs in core.** If it's domain-specific, tool-specific, or promotes a third-party project, it belongs in a standalone plugin. Tell your human partner.
-5. **Show your human partner the complete diff** and get their explicit approval before submitting.
+5. **Identify yourself.** Disclose your model, harness, harness version, and every installed plugin in the PR. Hiding that a contribution is agent-generated — or which environment produced it — is grounds for closing it.
+6. **Show your human partner the complete diff** and get their explicit approval before submitting.
 
 If any of these checks fail, do not open the PR. Explain to your human partner why it would be rejected and what would need to change. They will thank you for saving them the embarrassment.
 
@@ -26,6 +27,10 @@ If any of these checks fail, do not open the PR. Explain to your human partner w
 
 **PRs that show no evidence of human involvement will be closed.** A human must review the complete proposed diff before submission.
 
+**Submitters MUST identify themselves.** Every PR and issue must disclose the model, harness, harness version, and all installed plugins used to produce the contribution — or state plainly that it was written by hand with no agent. This is not optional. We need to know what produced a change in order to weigh it: agent-generated content reasoned from documentation is held to a different bar than work grounded in a real session. Contributions that hide their authoring environment will be closed.
+
+**All PRs MUST target the `dev` branch, not `main`.** `main` is the released branch; active work lands on `dev` first. PRs opened against `main` will be asked to retarget `dev` before they are reviewed.
+
 ## What We Will Not Accept
 
 ### Third-party dependencies

skills/brainstorming/SKILL.md

@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ You MUST create a task for each of these items and complete them in order:
 3. **Ask clarifying questions** — one at a time, understand purpose/constraints/success criteria
 4. **Propose 2-3 approaches** — with trade-offs and your recommendation
 5. **Present design** — in sections scaled to their complexity, get user approval after each section
-6. **Write design doc** — save to `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md` and commit
+6. **Write design doc** — save to `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md` and commit (exactly this path — not `docs/specs/`)
 7. **Spec self-review** — quick inline check for placeholders, contradictions, ambiguity, scope (see below)
 8. **User reviews written spec** — ask user to review the spec file before proceeding
 9. **Transition to implementation** — invoke writing-plans skill to create implementation plan
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ digraph brainstorming {
 **Documentation:**
 
 - Write the validated design (spec) to `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md`
-  - (User preferences for spec location override this default)
+  - (An explicit user instruction overrides this default; an existing differently-named docs directory does not)
 - Use elements-of-style:writing-clearly-and-concisely skill if available
 - Commit the design document to git
 

skills/executing-plans/SKILL.md

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ Load plan, review critically, execute all tasks, report when complete.
 ## The Process
 
 ### Step 1: Load and Review Plan
-1. Read plan file
+1. Read plan file, and the spec it cites in its `**Spec:**` header (plans reference requirements rather than restating them)
 2. Review critically - identify any questions or concerns about the plan
 3. If concerns: Raise them with your human partner before starting
 4. If no concerns: Create todos for the plan items and proceed

skills/subagent-driven-development/SKILL.md

@@ -86,6 +86,10 @@ digraph process {
 }
 ```
 
+## Spec Context
+
+If the plan's header cites a spec (`**Spec:** <path>`), read it once during plan extraction. Plans reference requirements rather than restating them — when a task cites a spec section, paste that section's text into the implementer and spec-reviewer prompts along with the task text. Implementer subagents never read the spec file themselves; the spec reviewer may additionally read it at the cited path (its prompt says so).
+
 ## Model Selection
 
 Use the least powerful model that can handle each role to conserve cost and increase speed.

skills/subagent-driven-development/implementer-prompt.md

@@ -12,6 +12,8 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
 
     [FULL TEXT of task from plan - paste it here, don't make subagent read file]
 
+    [If the task cites spec sections, paste the cited sections' text here too]
+
     ## Context
 
     [Scene-setting: where this fits, dependencies, architectural context]

skills/subagent-driven-development/spec-reviewer-prompt.md

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
 
     ## What Was Requested
 
-    [FULL TEXT of task requirements]
+    [FULL TEXT of task requirements, including the text of any spec sections the task cites]
 
     ## What Implementer Claims They Built
 
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ Subagent (general-purpose):
     git diff [BASE_SHA]..[HEAD_SHA]
     ```
 
-    Only read files in this diff. Do not crawl the broader codebase.
+    Only read files in this diff. Do not crawl the broader codebase. (One exception: if the requirements cite a spec document, you may read that spec at its cited path.)
 
     ## Read-Only Review
 

skills/writing-plans/SKILL.md

@@ -7,16 +7,18 @@ description: Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step task, bef
 
 ## Overview
 
-Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for our codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need to know: which files to touch for each task, code, testing, docs they might need to check, how to test it. Give them the whole plan as bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.
+Write comprehensive implementation plans assuming the engineer has zero context for our codebase and questionable taste. Document everything they need to execute: which files to touch for each task, code, testing, docs they might need to check, how to test it. Give them the whole plan as bite-sized tasks. DRY. YAGNI. TDD. Frequent commits.
 
 Assume they are a skilled developer, but know almost nothing about our toolset or problem domain. Assume they don't know good test design very well.
 
+**Plans reference the spec; they never restate, paraphrase, or summarize it.** The spec owns the WHAT and WHY — requirements, acceptance criteria, design decisions; the plan owns the HOW — tasks, files, code, commands. Cite it by path in the header and by section where a task needs context. Reference discipline never means skipping the spec: if brainstorming produced one, it exists and the plan cites it. No Placeholders still requires repeating code and commands WITHIN the plan; copying FROM the spec is different: a step that needs a requirement's prose is under-specified — turn it into a concrete action. Snapshotting spec text into the plan hides drift, not prevents it. "Zero context" means each step is mechanically executable, not that the plan repeats the spec.
+
 **Announce at start:** "I'm using the writing-plans skill to create the implementation plan."
 
 **Context:** If working in an isolated worktree, it should have been created via the `superpowers:using-git-worktrees` skill at execution time.
 
 **Save plans to:** `docs/superpowers/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-<feature-name>.md`
-- (User preferences for plan location override this default)
+- (An explicit user instruction overrides this default; an existing differently-named docs directory does not)
 
 ## Scope Check
 
@@ -53,6 +55,8 @@ This structure informs the task decomposition. Each task should produce self-con
 
 **Goal:** [One sentence describing what this builds]
 
+**Spec:** [Path to the spec doc, e.g. `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md` — requirements and design decisions live there; do not restate them here. Only if no spec doc exists (requirements arrived conversationally; brainstorming never ran): write "none — requirements:" and state them once here, not per task]
+
 **Architecture:** [2-3 sentences about approach]
 
 **Tech Stack:** [Key technologies/libraries]